“The so-called smartphone patent wars should not occur at the expense of consumers,” said Joaquín Almunia, the European Union competition commissioner.Credit
Olivier Hoslet/European Pressphoto Agency

BRUSSELS — Motorola Mobility broke European Union law by trying to wield unfair control over its basic patents for communications technologies used in smartphones and tablet computers, Europe’s antitrust chief said on Tuesday. But the commissioner did not fine the company, which is owned by Google.

The decision by Joaquín Almunia, the European Union competition commissioner, is aimed at quelling the patent wars involving technology titans like Apple, Google, Microsoft and Samsung. In the case at issue, Motorola brandished a court injunction it won against Apple in a patent dispute in Germany to unfairly impede competition, Mr. Almunia’s office concluded.

Tuesday’s ruling is an attempt to create more uniform rules of engagement for mobile technology patent disputes in the European Union. At stake are so-called standard essential patents in mobile communications that are used by Apple and other technology companies to make compatible products and help devices like iPhones, iPads and other types of smartphones and tablets communicate.

The European ruling is the strongest statement to date that antitrust authorities object to companies’ using patents deemed vital for communications and data-handling in devices as weapons to stymie rivals. But the decision is very much in line with the rulings and guidelines issued by the antitrust agencies in the United States.

On both sides of the Atlantic, antitrust experts say, regulators’ goal is to make patent disputes a matter of price negotiations rather than trade barriers. The picture in American courts is mixed, however.

Senior regulators around the world have grown increasingly concerned that it has become too easy for companies to win injunctions in national courts that could force manufacturers to withdraw popular products from the market. Mr. Almunia’s ruling would make it more difficult for companies to go court-shopping among member states in Europe in a way that can impede competition.

“The Motorola case set up the framework that we think should be followed in all the cases where the holder of standard essential patents can abuse their market power,” Mr. Almunia said at a news conference. “The so-called smartphone patent wars should not occur at the expense of consumers,” he said. “This is why all industry players must comply with the competition rules.”

The case has its origins in a disagreement between Apple and Motorola over the licensing of mobile communications patents, and over Apple’s right to challenge the validity of Motorola’s patents. By late 2011, as the dispute escalated, Motorola succeeded in winning an injunction from a German court in Mannheim that allowed the company to seek a ban on the distribution of Apple’s flagship products in Germany.

In February 2012, when Motorola sought to enforce the injunction, Apple reluctantly agreed not to challenge the wide variety of telecommunications patents held by Motorola. Those patents are vital for communicating over network systems including 2G, 3G, 4G and Wi-Fi.

At about the same time Apple complained to the antitrust authorities in Brussels. Mr. Almunia began a formal investigation of Motorola in April 2012 after complaints by Apple and also by Microsoft, which wanted to ensure access to video and wireless patents for products like the Xbox.

On Tuesday, Mr. Almunia decided that Motorola must now revise the agreement with Apple, removing the restrictions on its ability to challenge the validity of Motorola’s patents.

Katie Dove, a spokeswoman for Motorola Mobility, said in an email message that her company agreed “that injunctions should only be sought against unwilling licensees” but that, “in this case, Motorola Mobility followed the procedure established by the German courts.” Ms. Dove added, “We are now evaluating” the decision. She declined to respond to a follow-up message about whether Motorola would appeal.

Google announced in August 2011 that it would acquire Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion. The deal was mainly to acquire patents, including many related to wireless devices, to bolster Google’s Android software operating system, which has become the global leader in smartphone operating systems. When Mr. Almunia gave European regulatory approval for the deal in early 2012, he warned that he would not exonerate any past wrongdoing by Motorola.

The acquisition received United States approval in January 2013 from the Federal Trade Commission. The F.T.C. cleared the deal only after Google pledged to license essential communications and data software patents on “fair and reasonable” terms.

That same month, the F.T.C. and the Department of Justice, joined by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, issued guidelines to the International Trade Commission, which often reviews trade-related patent cases. The agencies instructed the trade commission not to halt the shipment of goods into the United States based on patent claims, as long as the two sides were willing to negotiate.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

In the European case, Mr. Almunia’s office signaled in February that Motorola might face a rebuke. The previous month, Google had said it planned to sell Motorola to Lenovo, but would still keep a valuable portfolio of patents. That sale is seeking regulatory approval.

Despite the lack of a fine in Tuesday’s European ruling, the decision should give valuable guidance to the technology industry, said Michael A. Carrier, a professor at Rutgers School of Law, in New Jersey.

The “decision confirms that patent holders cannot obtain injunctions against willing licensees,” Mr. Carrier said. “But the complexity of the issue likely convinced the E.C. not to issue a fine against Motorola,” he said, referring to the European Commission, the administrative arm of the European Union.

The commission has leeway to charge as much as 10 percent of a company’s most recent global annual sales for antitrust abuses. Google, as the parent company of Motorola, could have faced a large fine. Google’s Android operating system is still the subject of a separate antitrust inquiry by Mr. Almunia, who is questioning whether the company has used any unfair tactics to secure its world-leading position.

Mr. Almunia said he regarded some attempts by companies like Motorola to assert their claims to patents as valid. But he warned that holders of certain so-called standard-essential patents who had already consented to license them had to meet certain standards before resorting to court action.

“While patent holders should be fairly remunerated for the use of their intellectual property, implementers of such standards should also get access to standardized technology on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms,” Mr. Almunia said. “It is by preserving this balance that consumers will continue to have access to a wide choice of interoperable products,” he said.

In a separate decision, Mr. Almunia approved a settlement with Samsung in a similar case after the South Korean company agreed not to take rivals to court over patent disputes concerning patents and tablets.

In that case, Apple had complained about Samsung’s use of designs and packaging from the iPhone and iPad, while Samsung had accused Apple of infringing upon its wireless telecommunications patents.

“I welcome Samsung’s commitment to resolve disputes on standard essential patents without having recourse to injunctions in a way that could harm competition,” Mr. Almunia said.

Samsung and Apple are still engaged in a smartphone patent dispute in federal court in San Francisco, where closing arguments were taking place on Tuesday.

In the United States, there have been federal court rulings limiting the use of essential patents to hinder a competitor. But those have been in specific cases. Just last week, the federal appeals court that oversees patent cases reversed parts of an emphatic ruling in 2012 that sought to curb the use of such patents as weapons. In that widely followed case, Judge Richard A. Posner tossed out the case, finding the claims of both Apple and Google’s Motorola lacking.

Last week, the federal circuit court said Judge Posner went too far in suggesting that essential patents could not be used for injunctions to stop the shipments of a competitor’s product. But the majority opinion, by Judge Jimmie V. Reyna, also found that the Motorola patents in the case did not warrant an injunction. There were dissenting opinions from other judges.

“The courts are in a state of disarray on this issue,” said Arti K. Rai, a professor at the Duke University School of Law and a former senior official in the patent office.

James Kanter reported from Brussels and Steve Lohr from New York.

A version of this article appears in print on April 30, 2014, on Page B4 of the New York edition with the headline: Europe’s Antitrust Chief Censures Google’s Motorola Mobility Over Key Patents. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe